E 

231 
H3 


UC-NRLF 


SB    bO    SST 


o 

en 

o 

GO 
-J 


THE   CAPTURE 


OP 


TICONDEEOGA, 


IX 


17  7  5 


A  PAPER  READ   BEFORE  THE 


Fermaut  Misteical  $at;iettj, 


AT  MONTPELIEE, 


Tuesday,   October  19th,    1869, 


By    IIILAXD    HALL. 


MONTPELIER  : 
POLANDS'  STEAM  PKINTING  ESTABLISHMENT, 

Journal  Building,  State  Street. 

1869. 


OFFICERS 

OF  THE 


VERMONT  STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY, 


ELECTED  OCTOBER  19,  A.  D.  1869. 


President, 

GEORGE  F.  HOUGHTON,  St.  Albans. 

Vice  Presidents, 

WILLIAM  H.  LORD,  D.  D.,  Montpelier, 

Gen.  JOHN  W.  PHELPS,  Brattleboro, 

Hon.  GEORGE  W.  BENEDICT,  Burlington 

Recording  Secretary, 

HENRY  CLARK,  Rutland. 

Corresponding  Secretary, 

ALBERT  D.  HAGER,  Proctors  ville. 

Treasurer, 

HERMAN  D.  HOPKINS,  Montpelier. 

Librarian, 

CHARLES  REED,  Montpelier. 


BOARD    OF    CURATORS, 

Hampden  Cutts,  Brattleboro, 

Charles  Reed,  Montpelier, 

George  Grenville  Benedict,  Burlington, 

Philander  D.  Bradford,  Northfield, 

Charles  S.  Smith,  Montpelier, 

John  R.  Cleaveland,  Brookfield, 

Orville  S.  Bliss,  Georgia. 


All  donations  of  Books,  Pamphlets  or  Newspapers,  should  be  addressed  to 
Hop.  Charles  Reed,  Librarian,  Montpelier. 


f/* 


•     THE  CAPTURE 


OF 


TICONDEKOG-A, 


IN 


1775. 

A  PAPER  READ   BEFORE  THE 

^tmwtttt  ipstorocaJ  §tm$ty, 

AT  MONTPELIEK, 

Tuesday,   October  19th,  1869, 

By    HILAND    HALL. 


•  „■>  '  -  ■» 


MONTPELIER : 
POLANDS'  STEAM  PRINTING  ESTABLISHMENT, 

Journal  Building,  State  Street. 

1869. 


•  •  •!  • 

•  ••* «  « 


z 


ADDRESS  OF  GOV.  HALL. 


Mr.  President  of  the  Vermont  Historical  Society ', 

and  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 

Before  I  commence  the  paper  which  I  have  been  requested  to 
read  this  evening,  a  word  of  explanation  seems  necessary. 
Within  the  past  dozen  years  a  special  enmity  toward  the  early 
inhabitants  and  institutions  of  Vermont  has  been  exhibited  by 
a  few  historical  writers  in  New  York  City ;  perhaps  inherited 
from  their  land-jobbing  ancestors.  Their  hostile  demonstrations 
have  not  been  made  by  any  attempted  production  of  facts  or  argu- 
ments, but  in  dark  insinuations  against  the  patriotism  or  integrity 
of  the  founders  of  our  State,  and  by  calling  them  an  abundance 
of  hard  names.  Ethan  Allen  has  come  in  for  a  large  share  of 
their  hostility,  though  it  has  generally  been  without  assuming  any 
tangible  form.  But  in  December  last,  Mr.  B.  F.  DeCosta,  who  I 
understand  is  a  retired  clergyman  living  in  New  York  city,  so  far 
departed  from  the  previous  practice  as  to  come  forward  with  an 
elaborate  article  in  the  Galaxy  Magazine,  in  which  he  under- 
takes to  show  that  John  Brown,  Esq.,  of  Pittsfield,  and  the 
traitor,  Arnold,  were  the  real  heroes  in  the  capture  of  Ticonde- 
roga,  and  that  what  Ethan  Allen  did  was  of  very  little  account. 

The  magazine  article  was  very  thoroughly  and  effectually  an- 
swered by  Professor  George  W.  Benedict,  in  the  Burlington  Free 
Press,  and  by  the  Hon.  J.  Hammond  Trumbull,  in  the  Connecti- 
cut Courant,  and  in  newspaper  articles  by  others  in  Boston  and  St. 

M144782 


Albans.  The  paper  which  I  am  about  to  read  was  prepared  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  Galaxy  article,  under  the  impression 
that  it  might  be  advisable,  at  some  future  time,  to  publish  a  refu- 
tation of  it,  in  a  more  permanent  form  than  in  the  daily  or  weekly 
newspaper,  but  without  intending  to  read  it  before  this  Society. 
It  is  read  now,  in  consequence  of  the  unexpected  failure  of  the 
person  selected  to  deliver  the  annual  address  on  this  occasion. 


THE  CAPTURE  OF  TICONDEROGA  IN  1775. 

Who  took  Ticonderoga  ?  is  a  question  recently  asked  in  the 
G-alaxy  Magazine,  by  Mr.  B.  F.  DeCosta,  of  New  York  city, 
which  question  he  at  once  proceeded  to  answer  by  giving  an  ac- 
count of  the  event  quite  different  from  that  which  has  been  com- 
monly received. 

The  leading  facts  relating  to  the  capture  have  hitherto  been  re- 
garded to  be,  that  the  expedition  was  secretly  planned  by  some 
gentlemen  in  Connecticut,  who  furnished  a  few  men  with  funds  for 
expenses  and  supplies  for  the  undertaking  ;  that  these  men  set  off 
for  Bennington  with  the  intention  of  engaging  Col.  Ethan  Allen 
in  the  enterprise,  and  with  the  expectation  of  raising  the  force  for 
the  capture  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants ;  that  on  their  way, 
at  Salisbury  and  in  Berkshire  county,  their  number  was  increased 
to  some  fifty  or  sixty  ;  that  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants  they 
were  joined  by  nearly  two  hundred  Green  Mountain  Boys  col- 
lected by  Allen  and  his  associates,  Allen  being  elected  to  the 
command  of  the  whole ;  that  after  the  men  had  been  mustered 
atCastleton  for  the  attack,  Benedict  Arnold,  with  a  single  attend- 
ant, arrived  there,  and  claimed  the  command  by  virtue  of  written 
instructions  from  the  Committee  of  Safety  of  Massachusetts,  au- 
thorizing him  "  to  enlist  "  four  hundred  men,  and  with  them  seize 
the  fortress  ;  that  Arnold,  having  no  authority  to  command  these 


men  already  raised,  and  to  whom  he  was  an  entire  stranger,  his 
claim  was  denied,  and  Allen  was  confirmed  in  the  supreme  com- 
mand ;  that  Arnold  was  allowed  to  join  the  party  as  an  assistant, 
and  when  the  fort  was  surprised,  was  permitted  to  enter  it  by  the 
side  of  Allen  at  his  left ;  and  that  Allen,  being  thus  in  command 
of  the  expedition,  demanded  the  surrender  of  the  fort  from  Capt. 
Delaplace,  its  commander,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Great  Jehovah 
and  the  Continental  Congress." 

Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  account  of  the  capture  given  by 
Gordon  in  his  contemporaneous  history ;  by  Holmes  in  his  Annals ; 
by  Sparks  in  his  Lives  of  Allen  and  Arnold ;  by  Hildreth  in  his 
History  of  the  United  States  ;  by  Irving  in  his  Life  of  Washington ; 
and  by  Bancroft,  and  numerous  other  historians. 

In  contravention  of  this  uniform  current  of  history,  the  writer 
in  the  Galaxy  Magazine,  disregarding  the  most  important  features 
of  this  account,  claims  that  John  Brown,  a  lawyer  of  Pittsfield, 
Massachusetts,  "  was  the  person  who  first  suggested  the  enter- 
prise "  by  which  the  fortress  was  taken ;  that  he  had  visited 
Canada  by  the  request  of  Gen.  Joseph  Warren  and  Samuel  Ad- 
ams, "  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  people  to  the  cause  of  indepen- 
dence," and  that  in  the  month  of  March,  1775,  he  had  written  to 
Warren  and  Adams,  "  that  the  fort  of  Ticonderoga  must  be 
seized,  as  soon  as  possible,  should  hostilities  be  committed  by 
the  king's  troops  ;"  that  Samuel  Adams,  who  was  a  delegate  from 
Massachusetts  to  the  Continental  Congress,  while  on  his  way  to 
Philadelphia,  was  at  Hartford  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  April,  1775, 
when  he  and  "  a  number  of  gentlemen  met  with  the  governor  of 
Connecticut  and  resolved  on  the  capture  of  Ticonderoga,"  in 
furtherance  of  "  Brown's  recommendation ;"  that  the  party  sent 
on  the  expedition  from  Connecticut,  "  at  once  reported  to  Brown 
for  the  express  purpose  of  advising  with  him  about  the  whole 
matter."  Therefore,  the  writer  concludes  that  Col.  John  Brown 
is  entitled  to  the  credit  of  originating  the  plan  for  the  capture, 


and  especially  that  Ethan  Allen  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it. 
In  the  actual  capture  of  the  fortress,  the  writer  claims  that  Ar- 
nold held  a  joint  and  equal  command  with  Allen,  and  is,  in  fact, 
entitled  to  the  largest  share  of  the  honor. 

Mr.  DeCosta,  who  professes  to  belong  to  a  "  new  school  of  his- 
tory," commences  his  views  of  the  capture  of  Ticonderoga  with 
high  claims  to  historical  research  and  accuracy,  as  follows  : 

"  The  study  of  American  history"  he  says,  "has  now  entered 
upon  a  new  era.  An  intelligent  patriotism  no  longer  demands  the 
unquestioned  belief  of  every  vainglorious  tradition.  Historical 
students  have  discovered  that  in  order  to  enforce  conviction  they 
must  produce  authorities." 

We  are  not  disposed  to  controvert  the  rule  which  the  writer 
thus  lays  down  for  historical  research.  Whether  it  belongs  to  an 
old  or  "  a  new  era,"  it  is  peculiarly  obligatory  upon  one,  who 
like  the  Gralaxy  writer,  propounds  a  new  historical  theory  for  the 
overthrow  of  a  belief  which  has  prevailed  for  nearly  a  century, 
and  has  hitherto  been  unquestioned. 

Now  for  the  application  of  this  rule  to  the  article  of  Mr.  De- 
Costa,  that  we  may  ascertain  to  what  extent  he  "  enforces  convic- 
tion" of  its  truth  "by  the  production  of  authorities." 

And  first,  in  regard  to  his  assumption  that  John  Brown  was  the 
originator  of  the  expedition  by  which  Ticonderoga  was  taken. 
The  first  piece  of  evidence  upon  which  the  writer  relies,  is  a  let- 
ter written  from  Montreal  by  Brown  to  General  Joseph  Warren 
and  Samuel  Adams,  in  the  month  of  March,  1775,  from  which  he 
makes  a  quotation  as  follows  : 

"  One  thing  I  must  mention,  to  be  kept  a  profound  secret.  The 
fort  of  Ticonderoga  must  be  seized  as  soon  as  possible,  should  hos- 
tilities be  committed  by  the  king's  troops.  The  people  on  the 
New  Hampshire  Grants  have  engaged  to  do  the  business ,  and,  in 
my  opinion,  are  the  proper  persons  for  the  job." 


One  would  naturally  suppose  from  the  fact  here  stated  by 
Brown,  "  that  the  people  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants  had  en- 
gaged to  do  the  business  ;"  that  he  had  been  in  consultation  with 
the  leaders  of  those  people,  persons  who  were  accustomed  to 
speak  and  act  in  their  behalf  and  to  enter  into  engagements  for 
them.  But  this  natural  inference  would  interfere  with  the  writer's 
theory  that  the  project  was  wholly  Brown's,  by  leaving  it  in  doubt 
whether  the  capture  was  first  suggested  by  him  or  by  those  with 
whom  he  had  been  in  consultation  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants. 
It  was,  therefore,  necessary  for  him  to  ignore  any  such  inter- 
course with  the  leaders,  which  he  does  by  asserting  that  "  the 
only  people  he,  [Brown]  had  anything  to  do  with  were  a  couple 
of  old  hunters  who  ferried  him  hurriedly  down  Lake  Champlain." 
To  be  sure,  this  places  Brown  in  the  unenviable  position  of  mak- 
ing a  false  representation  to  his  employers,  that  the  people  on  the 
Grants  had  made  a  certain  important  engagement  with  him,  when 
he  had  not  seen  them  and  it  was  consequently  impossible  that  they 
should  have  done  any  such  thing.  Hence  we  are  compelled  to 
infer,  that  in  the  ethics  of  the  "  new  era,"  upon  which  "  the 
study  of  American  history  has  entered,"  a  false  representation  is 
regarded  as  a  very  trifling  matter. 

But  let  us  inquire  a  little  further  into  this  mission  of  Mr. 
Brown  into  Canada,  and  his  doings  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants. 
Early  in  the  year  1775,  an  approaching  struggle  of  the  colonies 
with  the  mother  country  was  clearly  foreseen,  and  measures  taken 
io  prapare  for  it.  On  the  15th  of  February  a  resolution  was 
passed  by  the  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts,  which,  after 
reciting  that  it  appeared  to  be  the  design  of  the  British  ministry 
to  engage  the  Canadians  and  Indians  in  hostile  measures  against 
the  colonies,  directed  the  committee  of  correspondence  of  the 
town  of  Boston,  "  in  such  way  and  manner  as  they  should  think 
proper,  to  open  and  establish  an  intimate  correspondence  and  con- 


8 

nection  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  and  that 
they  endeavor  to  put  the  same  immediately  into  execution." 
That  committee  appointed  Mr.  Brown  to  repair  to  Canada  for  the 
purpose  indicated  by  the  resolution,  furnishing  him  with  letters 
and  pamphlets  for  friends  in  Montreal.  It  appears  by  Mr. 
Brown's  letter  from  that  place  to  Messrs.  Warren  and  Adams  be- 
fore referred  to,  which  bears  date  March  29,  1775,  that  immedi- 
ately after  receiving  the  letters  and  papers  he  went  to  Albany  to 
open  a  correspondence  with  a  Dr.  Joseph  Young,  and  also  to  as- 
certain the  state  of  the  lakes,  which  he  says  he  found  "  impassa- 
ble at  that  time."  He  accordingly  returned  to  Pittsfield,  and 
about  a  fortnight  afterward,  "  set  out  for  Canada."  That  he 
took  the  most  direct  and  convenient  route  through  Bennington 
across  the  New  Hampshire  Grants,  there  can  be  no  manner  of 
doubt.  It  appears  by  his  letter  that  on  his  arrival  in  Canada,  the 
engagement  with  him  to  capture  Ticonderoga,  before  mentioned, 
had  been  entered  into,  and  that  he  had  also  accomplished  one  of  the 
most  important  objects  of  his  mission,  indicated  in  the  Massachusetts 
resolution,  by  establishing,  as  his  letter  states,  "  a  channel  of  cor- 
respondence through  the  New  Hampshire  Grants,  which  might  he 
depended  on"  neither  of  which  could  have  been  done  if  he  had 
taken  any  other  route.  He  says  in  his  letter  "  two  men  from  the  New 
Hampshire  Grants  accompanied  me"  to  Canada.  These  compan- 
ions and  guides  were  furnished  him  by  the  committee  of  the  New 
Hampshire  Grants  at  Bennington,  as  appears  by  authentic  and 
undoubted  evidence.  One  of  them  was  no  other  than  Peleg  Sun- 
derland, one  of  the  eight  persons  who  had  been  condemned  to 
death  without  trial  by  the  infamous  New  York  outlawry  act  of 
1774.  In  1787,  he  petitioned  the  General  Assembly  of  Vermont, 
stating  that  "  in  the  month  of  March,  1775,  he  was  called  upon 
and  requested  by  the  Grand  Committee  at  Bennington  to  go  to 
Canada  as  a  pilot  to  Major  John  Brown,  who  was  sent  by  the  Pro- 


vincial  Congress,"  etc.;  that  he  was  in  that  service  twenty-one 
days,  for  which  he  had  never  received  any  compensation.  The 
petition  was  referred  to  a  committee  who  reported  that  "  the  peti- 
tioner did  go  to  Canada  by  order  of  the  authority,  to  pilot  Major 
Brown  as  set  up  in  his  petition,"  and  recommended  that  he  be  paid 
therefor  from  the  State  Treasury,  the  sum  of  eight  pounds  and 
fourteen  shillings,  being  at  the  rate  of  one  dollar  per  day,  which 
payment  was  accordingly  made.  (See  petition  and  report  on  file 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  at  Montpelier,  and  Journals 
of  Assembly,  March  7,  1787  ;  also  Hall's  Early  History  of  Ver- 
mont, 198,  470.  For  Brown's  letter  to  Warren  and  Adams,  see 
Force's  Archives,  Vol.  2,  4th  series,  243.) 

There  would  seem,  then,  to  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Brown  did  see 
other  people  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants  besides  "  the  couple 
of  old  hunters,  who  ferried  him  hurriedly  down  Lake  Cham- 
plain  ;"  that  he  did  in  fact  confer  with  "  the  Grand  Committee  " 
of  those  people,  and  that  there  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to*  ques- 
tion the  truth  of  Brown's  statement,  that  "  the  people  on  the  New 
Hampshire  Grants"  had  engaged  to  capture  Ticonderoga.  It 
consequently  follows  that  Mr.  DeCosta's  theory,  which  convicts 
Brown  of  misrepresentation  and  falsehood,  falls  to  the  ground. 

It  is  perhaps  proper  to  notice  here  that  Mr.  DeCosta,  after  what 
he  says  about  the  two  old  hunters,  adds  the  following:  "With 
Allen,  who  lived  far  away  from  the  lake,  he  (Brown)  had  no  commu- 
nication as  is  shown  by  the  declarations  of  Allen  himself."  We  have 
no  direct  proof  that  Brown  saw  Allen  on  this  occasion,  though 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  did,  for  Allen's  residence  was  at 
Bennington,  and  he  was  a  member  of  the  Grand  Committee  with 
whom  Brown  conferred.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  in  words  polite 
of  the  assertion  of  Mr.  DeCosta,  that  "  it  is  shown  by  the  decla- 
rations of  Allen  himself ',"  that  Brown  did  not  see  him.  The  wri- 
ter produces  no  authority  for  the  statement,  and  can  produce  none. 


10 


It  is  either  a  random  assertion  made  without  thought  or  consider- 
ation, allowable  only  in  his  "  new  era  of  American  history,"  or 
it  is  something  worse.     There  is  not  a  ivord  of  truth  in  it.  . 

"Whether  the  suggestion  in  regard  to  the  seizure  of  Ticonde- 
roga  was  first  made  by  Allen,  or  by  some  other  of  the  Green 
Mountain  Boys  with  whom  Brown  was  in  conference,  or  by  Brown 
himself,  does  not  appear,  nor  is  it  material  to  know.  The  neces- 
sity of  the  seizure,  in  case  of  hostilities  with  the  mother  country, 
was  too  obvious  to  escape  the  attention  of  any  intelligent  person 
residing  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants,  or  indeed  anywhere  in 
New  England.  While  the  lake,  which  that  fort  commanded,  had 
been  in  the  possession  of  the  French,  the  Northern  frontier  had 
been  constantly  exposed  to  their  incursions,  and  had  been  repeat- 
edly ravaged  by  their  Indian  allies.  That  frontier,  which  had  until 
then  been  Northern  Massachusetts,  was  now,  by  the  settlements  on 
the  New  Hampshire  Grants,  on  the  very  verge  of  the  fortress. 
There  could  be  no  security  whatever  for  the  people  on  those  Grants, 
if  the  fort  was  to  remain  in  the  possession  of  an  enemy.  The  sug- 
gestion of  its  capture,  the  necessity  for  which  could  not  but  have 
been  seen  and  felt  by  hundreds,  could  not  add  to  the  fame  of 
either  Allen  or  Brown.  The  speaking  or  writing  of  the  propri- 
ety or  necessity  of  the  seizure  of  Ticonderoga,  and  the  originat- 
ing of  a  plan  which  should  result  in  its  capture,  are  two  very 
different  things,  which  however,  Mr.  DeCosta  does  not  seem  to 
comprehend.  Under  the  circumstances  which  actually  existed, 
we  have  seen  that  the  former  would  be  a  small  matter.  The  lat- 
ter, on  the  contrary,  would  be  quite  an  important  one.  If  the 
expedition  from  Connecticut  which  eventuated  in  the  seizure  of 
the  fortress,  was  started  in  consequence  of  Brown's  letter  to  "War- 
ren and  Adams,  and  with  the  design  that  Brown  as  the  originator 
of  it,  should  aid  in  its  execution,  as  is  contended  by  Mr.  DeCosta, 
then  Brown  is  entitled  to  an  honor  which  has  not  hitherto  been 


11 

accorded  to  him,  and  which  it  is  not  known  that  he  ever  claimed. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  expedi- 
tion, which,  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  was  first  put  in  motion  at 
Hartford.  Since  the  publication  in  1860,  by  the  Connecticut 
Historical  Society,  under  the  direction  of  J.  Hammond  Trumbull, 
its  distinguished  President,  of  sundry  original  documents,  princi- 
pally from  the  public  archives  of  that  State,  there  seems  no  room 
for  doubt  about  its  origin.  The  capture  was  concerted  at  Hart- 
ford on  the  27th  of  April,  1775,  between  Col.  Samuel  H.  Par- 
sons, Col.  Samuel  Wyllys  and  Silas  Deane,  who  associated  with 
them  Christopher  Leffingwell,  Thomas  Mumford  and  Adam  Bab- 
cock.  These  six  gentlemen  on  the  following  day,  for  the  sake  of 
secrecy  and  dispatch,  without  any  consultation  with  the  Assem- 
bly or  other  persons,  obtained  from  the  Colony  Treasury  on  their 
personal  obligations,  three  hundred  pounds  for  the  purposes  of 
the  undertaking.  This  was  on  Friday,  the  28th  of  April,  and  on 
the  same  day  Capt.  Noah  Phelps  and  Bernard  Romans  were  dis- 
patched with  the  money  to  the  northward  to  obtain  men  and  sup- 
plies ;  and  the  next  day  they  were  followed  by  Capt.  Edward 
Mott,  Jeremiah  Halsey,  Epaphras  Bull,  William  Nichols  and  two 
others,  and  were  overtaken  by  them  on  Sunday  evening  at  Salis- 
bury, some  forty  miles  from  Hartford.  The  receipts  to  the  Treas- 
urer for  the  money  bear  date  the  28th  of  April,  and  the  evidence 
in  proof  of  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  expedition  is  full  and 
unquestionable.     (Conn.  Hist.  Col.,  Vol.  1,  162-188.) 

According  to  Mr.  DeCosta,  Samuel  Adams,  one  of  the  gen- 
tlemen to  whom  Mr.  Brown's  letter  from  Montreal  had  been  ad- 
dressed, was  in  Hartford  on  the  21th  of  April  on  his  way  to  Phila- 
delphia, with  John  Hancock  and  others,  and  on  that  day  the  plan 
for  the  capture  of  the  fortress  was  arranged  by  him  and  other 
gentlemen  with  the  governor  and  council  of  Connecticut.  Now  if 
Samuel  Adams  was  not  at  Hartford  on  the  27th  of  April  when  the 


12 

expedition  was  planned,  Mr.  DeCosta's  theory  and  superstructure 
fall  to  the  ground.  That  he  could  not  have  been  there  on  that 
day  is  beyond  question.  On  the  24th  of  April,  John  Hancock 
wrote  from  Worcester  to  the  Massachusetts  committee  of  safety, 
among  other  things,  as  follows :  "  Mr.  S.  Adams  and  myself  just 
arrived  here,  find  no  intelligence  from  you  and  no  guard.  *  * 
******  How  are  we  to  proceed  ?  Where  are  our 
brethren  ?*******  Where  is  Cushing  ? 
Are  Mr.  Paine  and  Mr.  John  Adams  to  be  with  us  ?  [They 
were  the  other  three  delegates  to  the  Continental  Congress.]  *  * 
Pray  remember  Mr.  Adams  and  myself  to  all  friends."  (Force's 
Archives,  4th  Series,  Vol.  2,  384.)  On  the  26th,  he  wrote 
again:  "  I  set  out  to-morrow  morning."  (TM, 401.)  The  dis- 
tance from  Worcester  to  Hartford,  seventy  or  eighty  miles,  was 
two  good  days'  travel  in  those  days,  and  the  delegates  could  not 
have  reached  there  till  the  evening  of  the  28th  or  the  morning  of 
the  29th,  after  Phelps  and  Romans  were  well  on  their  way  to 
Salisbury. 

In  support  of  his  claim  that  Mr.  Adams  was  at  Hartford  on 
the  27th  of  April,  Mr.  DeCosta  relies  upon  two  authorities,  both 
of  which  flatly  contradict  his  position.  One  of  them  is  the  life 
of  Samuel  Adams  by  Mr.  Wells,  who  instead  of  stating  that  *Mr. 
Adams  was  at  Hartford  on  that  day,  says  he  left  Worcester  on 
the  27th,  and  was  at  Hartford  on  the  29th.  (Vol.  2,  207.)  The 
other  authority  is  an  anonymous  letter  found  in  Force's  American 
Archives,  (Vol.  2,  507)  from  a  gentleman  in  Pittsfield,  dated 
May  4,  1775,  which  erroneously  states  that  the  expedition  had 
been  concerted  the  previous  Saturday  by  Samuel  Adams  and  Col. 
Hancock  with  the  governor  of  Connecticut  and  others.  But  the 
previous  Saturday  was  the  29th  of  April,  and  not  the  27th,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  the  next  day  after  the  advance  party  of  the 
expeditionists  had  left  Hartford.     1\  is,  therefore,  very  clear  that 


13 


Mr.  Adams  could  not  have  had  any  hand  in  planning  the  expe- 
dition, and  of  consequence  that  Brown's  letter  to  him  and  War- 
ren had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is  proper  to  state  in  this  con- 
nection that  Mr.  Bancroft  in  the  first  edition  of  his  History  of  the 
United  States  followed  the  Pittsfield  letter,  in  stating  that  the  ex- 
pedition had  been  concerted  by  Adams  and  Hancock  with  the 
governor  of  Connecticut  at  Hartford,  "  On  Saturday ,  the  29th 
of  April;"  but  in  his  later  edition,  issued  since  the  publication 
of  the  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  before  mentioned,  he 
expunged  that  statement  as  unfounded,  and  ascribed  the  origin  of 
the  adventure  to  the  private  gentlemen  we  have^before  named. 
(Bancroft,  Vol.  7,  editions  of  1858,  and  of  1864,  p.  338.)  It  was 
reserved  for  Mr.  DeCosta  to  discover  that  Saturday  the  29th  of 
April,  was  Thursday  the  27th  ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
does  belong  to  "  a  new  school  of  history;"  one  that  in  support  of 
a  favorite  theory,  not  only  wrests  authorities  from  their  obvious 
meaning,  but  relies  upon  those  to  sustain  it  which  prove  it  to  be 
false. 

Mr.  DeCosta  refers  to  another  authority  in  relation  to  "  Col. 
John  Brown,"  with  what  object  it  is  difficult  to  conceive,  unless  it 
was  to  convince  his  readers  that  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  him 
to  understand  correctly,  and  properly  apply,  any  peice  of  histori- 
cal evidence  whatever.  He  says,  "  only  three  days  after  the  de- 
cision of  the  people  at  Hartford,  General  Warren  wrote  to  Alex- 
ander McDougal  of  New  York,  saying  that  it  had  been  proposed 
to  take  Ticonderoga ;"  and  Mr.  DeCosta  asks,  "  By  whom  was 
this  proposition  made  ?"  And  then  in  answer  says,  "  the  only 
person  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge  who  had  urged  this  upon 
Warren  was  Col.  John  Brown  in  his  letter  from  Montreal  the  pre- 
vious March."  This  letter  of  Warren  to  McDougal  bears  date 
the  30th  of  April,  and  on  the  same  page  of  Force's  Archives, 
(Yol.  2,  450)  where  Mr.  DeCosta  finds  it,  and  immediately  pre- 


14 

ceding  it,  is  a  letter  from  Benedict  Arnold  to  Warren  of  the 
same  date,  stating  the  condition  of  the  fort  at  Ticonderoga,  show- 
ing most  conclusively  that  it  was  Arnold's  and  not  Brown's  propo- 
sition to  which  the  letter  to  McDougal  referred.  How  it  was  pos- 
sible for  the  writer  of  the  Galaxy  article  to  overlook  the  connec- 
tion between  these  two  letters  of  the  same  date,  thus  found  to- 
gether on  the  same  page,  is  a  mystery,  which  can  only  be  solved 
by  Mr.  DeCosta  himself. 

Mr.  DeCosta,  seeking  to  confirm  his  theory  that  it  was  part  of 
the  programme  of  the  expedition  from  Hartford,  that  Brown  was 
to  take  a  part  in  it,  says,  "  the  party  from  Connecticut  moved  at 
once  to  Col.  John  Brown,  at  Pittsfield,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
advising  with  him  about  the  whole  matter."  Again  he  says,  "  the 
party  from  Connecticut  at  once  reported  to  Brown,"  and  thus  "  ac- 
knowledged his  agency."  Now,  there  is  no  foundation  whatever 
for  this  statement,  and  if  the  writer  had  paid  but  a  moderate  at- 
tention to  the  abundant  authentic  evidence  bearing  on  the  point, 
he  certainly  could  not  have  hazarded  any  such  assertion  ;  unless, 
indeed,  the  habit  of  misunderstanding  and  perverting  the  mean- 
ing of  authorities,  which  we  have  seen  he  had  fallen  into,  in 
his  "  new  school  of  history,"  had  become  too  inveterate  to  be 
overcome. 

From  the  papers  published  in  the  Connecticut  Historical  Col- 
lections, before  mentioned,  consisting  of  the  journal  of  the  expe- 
dition kept  by  Capt.  Edward  Mott,pand  a  contemporaneous  account 
by  Elisha  Phelps,  and  also  by  the  official  report  made  to  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Congress  by  the  committee  having  charge  of  the  expe- 
dition, it  fully  appears  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  original  design 
of  the  Connecticut  party  to  call  upon  Brown  at  all ;  that  the  men 
from  Hartford  were  to  stop  at  Salisbury,  and  after  being  joined 
there  by  a  few  others,  were,  in  the  language  of  Captain  Mott, 
"  to  keep  their  business  secret  and  ride  through  the  country  un- 


15 

armed  until  they  came  to  the  new  settlements  on  the  Grants," 
where  they  were  to  raise  the  men  to  make  the  capture.  The 
party  pursued  that  intention  until  they  arrived  at  Pittsfield,. 
where,  stopping  to  tarry  over  night,  they  fell  in  with  Col.  James 
Easton  and  John  Brown,  Esq.,  and  learning  that  the  latter  had 
lately  been  to  Canada,  concluded  to  inform  them  of  their  project 
and  to  take  their  advice.  The  result  of  their  conference  was,  that 
it  was  resolved  to  raise  a  portion  of  the  force  for  the  expedition 
in  Berkshire  county,  and  both  Easton  and  Brown  agreed  to  take 
part  in  it.  (See  Conn.  Collections,  167,  168,  173,  174,  175 ; 
Force's  Archives,  Yol.  2,  557-559,  and  Jour.  Mass.  Cong.,  696.) 

The  only  authority  which  Mr.  DeCosta  cites  in  support  of  this 
part  of  his  theory,  is  the  before  mentioned  Pittsfield  letter,  the 
meaning  of  which  he  distorts  and  falsifies  after  his  usual  manner. 
He  quotes  it  as  stating  the  fact  that  "  the  Connecticut  volunteers 
reported  to  Col.  Brown" — whereas  the  letter  states  no  such  thing. 
It  merely  says  that  the  Connecticut  men  at  Pittsfield  had  "  been 
joined  by  Col.  Easton,  Capt.  Dickinson  and  Mr.  Broivn  with  forty 
soldiers."  Here  is  no  intimation  that  the  volunteers,  in  pursu- 
ance of  previous  instructions,  reported  to  Brown.  Brown  merely 
joined  them.  It  might,  at  least  with  equal  propriety  be  asserted 
that  they  reported  to  Col.  Easton  or  Capt.  Dickinson,  their  names 
being  mentioned  prior  to  that  of  Brown's.  (Force's  Archives, 
Yol.  2,  507.) 

Although  Brown  had  no  part  in  originating  the  Ticonderoga 
expedition,  his  services,  after  he  joined  it,  were  undoubtedly  earn- 
est and  valuable,  and  they  were  duly  appreciated  and  acknowl- 
edged by  his  associates.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
ever,  in  his  lifetime,  claimed  the  peculiar  honor  which  Mr.  DeCosta 
seems  determined  to  thrust  upon  him.  It  is  evident,  however, 
from  Mr.  DeCosta' s  whole  article,  that  he  was  much  less  anxious 
to  increase  the  fame  of  Brown,  than  to  lessen  that  of  Col.  Allen.. 


16 

After  stating  what  he  claims  for  Brown  in  originating  the  expedi- 
tion, when  he  comes  to  his  statement  that  the  Connecticut  men  re- 
ported to  Brown,  he  says,  "  with  all  these  transactions  Ethan 
Allen  had  nothing  whatever  to  do."  Again,  he  says,  "  we  are 
justified  in  declaring  that  Brown's  recommendation  was  carried 
to  Hartford  and  acted  upon ;"  and  he  adds,  "  certainly  Ethan 
Allen  was  in  no  way  concerned.',  And  he  winds  up  this  branch 
of  his  tirade  against  Allen  as  follows  :  "  In  view  of  the  testimony 
which  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  the  subject,  it  will  be  idle  any 
longer  to  support  the  claim  of  Ethan  Allen  as  the  originator  of 
the  plan  to  capture  Ticonderoga." 

If,  under  the  inspiration  of  his  "  new  historical  school,"  it  had 
been  allowable  for  Mr.  DeCosta  to  have  paid  some  little  attention 
to  the  actual  history  of  the  expedition  about  which  he  was  under- 
taking to  write,  he  would  readily  have  discovered  that  there  was 
no  necessity  whatever  for  manufacturing  John  Brown  into  a  new 
hero  of  Ticonderoga,  for  the  purpose  of  supplanting  Allen ;  and  for 
the  very  plain  reason  that  Allen  had  never  made  any  pretensions 
to  have  done  what  the  writer  claims  for  Brown.  Allen  never 
claimed  that  he  was  the  originator  of  the  Ticonderoga  expedition, 
but  always  admitted  and  declared  that  it  was  set  on  foot  in  Con- 
necticut. It  is  so  stated  in  his  letter  from  Ticonderoga  to  the  Al- 
bany Committee,  of  May  11,  and  also  in  one  from  Crown  Point, 
of  June  2,  1775,  to  the  New  York  Congress.  (Force's  Archives, 
Yol.  2,  606,  891.  In  his  narrative  of  his  captivity,  he  speaks  of 
it  as  follows :  "  The  bloody  attempt  at  Lexington  to  enslave 
America,  thoroughly  electrified  my  mind,  and  fully  determined  me 
to  take  part  with  my  country ;  and  while  I  was  wishing  for  an 
opportunity  to  signalize  myself  in  its  behalf,  directions  were  pri- 
vately sent  me  from  the  then  Colony  (now  State)  of  Connecticut, 
to  raise  the  Green  Mountain  Boys,  and,  if  possible,  with  them  to 
surprise  the  fortress,  Ticonderoga.     This  enterprise  I  cheerfully 


17 

undertook,"  etc.  So  it  turns  out  that  Mr.  DeCosta,  in  his  eager- 
ness to  tarnish  the  fair  fame  of  Col.  Allen,  has  thus  far  been 
combatting  a  phantom  of  his  own  creation,  and  has  thus  expended 
a  vast  amount  of  labor  in  falsifying  history  to  no  purpose  what- 
ever. Leaving  then,  to  the  writer  of  this  philippic  against  Allen, 
all  the  glory  he  has  acquired  by  inventing  and  discussing  this  false 
issue,  we  will  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  real  facts  of  the  enter- 
prise ;  and  in  this  inquiry  we  will  not  overlook  any  additional  light 
which  Mr.  DeCosta  has  attempted  to  throw  upon  it. 

We  have  already  seen  from  the  statements  of  Captains  Mott 
and  Phelps,  two  of  the  principal  persons  who  were  sent  from 
Hartford  to  superintend  the  expedition,  that  it  was  their  original 
intention,  and  according  to  their  instructions,  to  raise  the  men  to 
carry  it  into  execution  on  the  New  Hampshire  Grants.  Such  be- 
ing their  design,  it  was  indispensable  to  secure  the  aid  of  Col. 
Ethan  Allen,  the  then  well  known  active  and  fearless  leader  of 
those  people,  who  under  the  name  of  Green  Mountain  Boys,  had 
for  years  successfully  defended  their  farms  against  the  efforts  of 
the  land-jobbing  government  of  New  York  to  dispossess  them. 
Their  bravery  and  local  position,  pointed  them  out  to  the  Connecti- 
cut men,  as  well  as  to  John  Brown,  as  "  the  most  proper  persons 
for  the  job." 

From  Hartford,  therefore,  the  conductors  of  the  enterprise,  in- 
stead of  reporting  "  at  once  to  Col.  Brown,"  as  Mr.  DeCosta  has 
it,  went  straight  to  Salisbury,  the  old  home  of  Ethan  Allen,  where 
his  brothers  Heman  and  Levi  were  living,  who  both  joined  the 
party.  At  Pittsfield,  we  have  seen  that  the  purpose  of  the  lead- 
ers was  so  far  changed,  that  it  was  determined  to  raise  a  portion 
of  the  necessary  force  in  Berkshire  county,  and  Col.  Easton  and 
others  set  about  doing  it.  An  account  of  the  expedition  published 
in  the  Hartford  Courant,  of  May  22,  1775,  twelve  days  after  the 
capture,  after  stating  that  the  Connecticut  party  had  engaged 
2 


18 

Easton  and  Brown  in  the  enterprise,  says,  "  they  likewise  imme- 
diately [doubtless  that  night]  dispatched  an  express  to  the  in- 
trepid Col.  Ethan  Allen,  of  Bennington,  desiring  him  to  be  ready 
to  join  them  with  a  party  of  his  valiant  Green  Mountain  Boys." 
The  Pittsfield  letter,  before  referred  to,  after  stating  that  the  men 
of  the  expedition  had  left  that  place  on  Tuesday,  adds,  "  a  post 
having  previously  taken  his  departure  to  inform  Col.  Ethan  Allen 
of  the  design,  and  desiring  him  to  hold  his  Green  Mountain  Boys 
in  readiness."  But  here  we  encounter  an  authority,  produced  by 
Mr.  DeCosta,  which  he  says  has  "  recently  been  brought  to  public 
light  from  the  Archives  of  Connecticut,"  and  which  he  intro- 
duces with  a  great  nourish,  as  if  it  were  perfectly  annihilating  to 
the  fame  of  Allen.  It  is  the  account  of  Bernard  Romans  with 
the  Colony  of  Connecticut  for  monies  expended  in  the  capture  of 
Ticonderoga.  One  item  of  the  account  is  in  the  following  words  : 
u  Paid  Heman  Allen  going  express  after  Ethan  Allen,  120  miles, 
<£2.16s."  "  Thus;'  adds  Mr.  DeCosta,  "Allen  himself  had  to  he 
drummed  up"  Without  stopping  to  take  exception  to  the  pecu- 
liar language  of  this  assertion,  we  are  free  to  admit  that  the  fact 
implied  in  it,  is  undoubtedly  true.  It  was  in  the  original  pro- 
gramme of  the  expedition  at  Hartford,  that  Allen  should  be 
found — notified — hunted  up, — or  if  you  please,  "  drummed  up," 
and  induced  to  join  it;  for  if  that  was  not  done,  the  enterprise 
would  be  likely  to  fail.  The  fact  that  it  was  deemed  essential  to 
the  success  of  the  undertaking  that  Allen  should  be  "drummed 
up" — which  is  confirmed,  beyond  question,  by  this  account  of  Ro- 
mans— is  highly  creditable  to  the  colonel ;  and  for  its  discovery, 
if  it  had  been  as  hidden  as  Mr.  DeCosta  seems  to  suppose,  we 
should  be  inclined  to  thank  him  quite  heartily.  The  production 
of  this  authority  in  the  Galaxy  article,  is  another  example  of  the 
proneness  of  "the  new  school  of  history"  to  rely  upon  evidence 
that  disproves  the  positions  it  aims  to  establish.  Whether  Heman 
Allen  was  paid  for  his  actual  travel  from  his  house  in  Salisbury, 


19 

or  for  his  travel  each  way,  or  only  one  way,  or  precisely  where 
he  found  his  brother,  is  not  stated.  His  mission,  however,  was 
successful ;  for  we  learn  from  Captain  Elisha  Phelps  that  when  the 
men  from  Pittsfield  reached  Bennington  they  "  met  Colonel  Allen, 
who  was  much  pleased  with  the  intended  expedition."  (Conn.  His. 
Col.,  175.)  He  having  been  thus  "  drummed  up,"  and  his  effi- 
cient services  secured,  the  expedition  proceeded  to  its  successful 
issue. 

The  great  object  of  the  writer  of  the  Q-alaxy  article  is  to  pro- 
duce some  substitute  for  Ethan  Allen  as  the  hero  of  Ticonderoga  ; 
and  having  now  done  all  in  his  power  for  Col.  Brown,  he  expends 
his  subsequent  eiforts  in  favor  of  Benedict  Arnold,  who  he 
claims  was  in  joint  and  equal  command  with  Allen,  and  is  indeed 
entitled  to  the  largest  share  of  the  honor  of  the  capture. 

It  should  here  be  stated  that  on  the  3d  of  May,  the  day  on 
which  the  party  from  Connecticut  reached  Bennington,  on  their 
way  to  Ticonderoga,  Benedict  Arnold,  who  was  at  Cambridge, 
near  Boston,  was  appointed  by  the  Massachusetts  Committee  of 
Safety,  "  Colonel  and  commander-in-chief  over  a  body  of  men  not 
exceeding  four  hundred,"  whom  he  was  directed  to  enlist,  and 
with  them  to  proceed  and  reduce  the  fort  at  Ticonderoga.  By  the 
terms  of  his  orders  he  was  to  enlist  the  men  with  whom  he  was 
to  seize  the  fortress,  and  he  was  not  authorized  to  command  any 
other  men.  (Sec  copy  of  his  orders,  Force's  Archives,  vol. 
2,  485.)  He  proceeded  to  the  western  part  of  Massachusetts, 
where  he  had  scarcely  begun  his  attempt  to  raise  men,  when  he 
learned  that  a  party  from  Connecticut  was  in  advance  of  him  in 
the  enterprise.  Stopping  only  to  engage  a  few  officers  to  enlist 
troops  and  follow  him,  he  pushed  on  in  pursuit  with  a  single 
attendant,  and  reached  Castleton,  after  the  Green  Mountain  Boys 
had  been  rallied  by  Allen  and  his  associates,  and  the  whole  force 
liad  been  mustered  at  that  place  for  the  attack. 

We  have  an  official  account  of  the  expedition  from  its  com- 


20 

mencement  at  Hartford,  till  its  termination,  addressed  by  Edward 
Mott,  as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  war  of  the  expedition,  to  the 
Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts,  dated  the  11th  day  of  May, 
1775,  the  next  day  after  the  capture,  which  is  undoubtedly  entitled 
to  full  credit.  The  following  is  the  language  of  so  much  of  it  as 
relates  to  the  part  taken  by  Benedict  Arnold  : 

"  On  Sunday  evening,  the  7th  of  this  instant,  May,  we  arrived 
at  Castleton,  where,  on  the  next  day,  was  held  a  council  of  war 
by  a  committee  chosen  for  that  purpose,  of  which  committee  I  had 
the  honor  to  be  chairman.  After  debating  and  consulting  on  differ- 
ent methods  of  procedure  in  order  to  accomplish  our  designs,  it 
was  concluded  and  voted  that  we  would  proceed  in  the  following 
manner,  viz.:  That  a  party  of  thirty  men,  under  the  command  of 
Capt.  Herrick,  should,  on  the  next  day  in  the  afternoon,  proceed  to 
Skenesborough  and  take  into  custody  Major  Skene  and  his  party, 
and  take  possession  of  all  the  boats  that  they  should  find  there, 
and  in  the  night  proceed  up  the  lake  to  Shoreham  [where  they 
were  to  meet]  with  the  remainder  of  our  men,  which  were  about 
one  hundred  and  forty,  who  were  under  the  command  of  Col. 
Ethan  Allen,  and  Col.  James  Easton  as  his  second,  and  Captain 
Warner,  the  third  in  command.  As  these  three  men  were  the 
persons  who  raised  the  men,  they  were  chosen  to  the  command, 
and  to  rank  according  to  the  number  of  men  that  each  one 
raised.  We  also  sent  off  Capt.  Douglass,  of  Jericho,  [Hancock,] 
to  proceed  directly  to  Panton,  and  there  consult  his  brother-in-law, 
who  lived  there,  and  send  down  some  boats  to  Shoreham,  if  possi- 
ble, to  help  our  people  over  to  the  fort.  All  this  it  was  concluded 
should  be  done  or  attempted,  and  was  voted  universally. 

"  After  this  affair  was  all  settled,  and  the  men  pitched  on  to  go 
in  each  party,  all  were  preparing  for  their  march,  being  then  with- 
in about  nine  miles  of  Skenesborough,  and  about  twenty-five  miles, 
on  the  way  we  went,  from  Ticonderoga,  Colonel  Arnold  arrived  to 
us  from  you  with  his  orders.     We  were  extremely  rejoiced  to  see 


21 

that  you  fully  agreed  with  us  as  to  the  expediency  and  importance 
of  taking  possession  of  the  garrisons.  But  we  were  shockingly 
surprised  when  Col.  Arnold  presumed  to  contend  for  the  command 
of  those  forces  that  we  had  raised,  whom  we  had  assured  should 
go  under  the  command  of  their  own  officers,  and  be  paid  and  main- 
tained by  the  colony  of  Connecticut.  But  Mr.  Arnold,  after  we 
had  generously  told  him  our  whole  plan,  strenuously  contended 
and  insisted  that  he  had  a  right  to  command  them  and  all  their 
officers  ;  which  bred  such  a  mutiny  amongst  the  soldiers  as  almost 
frustrated  our  whole  design.  Our  men  were  for  clubbing  their 
firelocks  and  marching  home,  but  were  prevented  by  Col.  Allen 
and  Col.  Easton,  who  told  them  that  he  should  not  have  the  com- 
mand of  them,  and  if  he  had,  their  pay  would  be  the  same  as 
though  they  were  under  their  command  ;  but  they  would  damn 
the  pay,  and  say  they  would  not  be  commanded  by  any  others  but 
those  they  engaged  with. 

"  After  the  garrison  was  surrendered,"  continues  the  official 
account,  "  Mr.  Arnold  again  assumed  the  command,  although  he 
had  not  one  man  there,  and  demanded  it  of  Col.  Allen,  on  which 
we  gave  Col.  Allen  his  orders  in  writing,  as  follows,  viz.: 

"  '  To  Col.  Ethan  Allen, 

"  '  Sir: — Whereas,  agreeably  to  the  power  and  authority  to 
us  given  by  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  we  have  appointed  you 
to  take  the  command  of  a  party  of  men,  and  reduce  and  take 
possession  of  the  garrison  at  Ticonderoga  and  the  dependencies 
thereto  belonging  ;  and  as  you  are  now  in  actual  possession  of  the 
same,  your  are  hereby  required  to  keep  the  command  and  posses- 
sion of  the  same,  for  the  use  of  the  American  colonies,  until  you 
have  further  orders  from  the  colony  of  Connecticut,  or  the  Con- 
tinental Congress. 

"  '  Signed  per  order  of  the  Committee  of  War. 

"  <  EDWARD  MOTT,   Chairman  of  said  Committee:  " 

Thus  far  in  the  words  of  the  official  document.  The  report  then 
gives  an  account  of  the  surprise  of  the  fort,  and  speaks  favorably 


22 

of  the  services  of  Col.  Easton,  and  recommends  "  John  Brown, 
Esq.,  of  Pittsfield,  as  an  able  counsellor,  full  of  spirit  and  resolu- 
tion, as  well  as  great  good  conduct." 

Accompanying  this  report  of  the  committee  of  war  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts Congress,  was  a  certificate,  signed  by  James  Easton, 
Epaphras  Bull,  Edward  Mott  and  Noah  Phelps  as  "  committee  of 
war  for  the  expedition  against  Ticonderoga  and  Crown  Point,' ' 
confirming  the  foregoing  statement  of  Mott  as  their  chairman. 
Capt.  Mott,  also,  in  his  journal  of  the  expedition,  gives  a  similar 
account  of  Arnold's  claim  to  the  command,  and  of  the  decisive 
denial  of  his  claim,  both  before  and  after  the  surrender  of  the  fort. 
(Journal  Mass.  Cong.,  696-699;  Force's  Archives,  Vol.  2,, 
556-560.) 

Gordon,  in  his  history  speaks  as  follows  of  the  application  of 
Arnold  for  the  command : 

"  A  council  of  war  was  called;  his  powers  were  examined; 
and  at  length  it  was  agreed,  that  he  should  be  admitted  to  join 
and  act  with  them,  that  so  the  public  might  be  benefited.  It 
was  settled,  however,  that  Col.  Allen  should  have  the  supreme 
command,  and  Col.  Arnold  was  to  be  his  assistant ;  with  which 
the  latter  appeared  satisfied,  as  he  had  no  right  by  his  commission 
either  to  command  or  interfere  with  the  others."     (Vol.  2,  11.) 

In  the  face  of  all  this  full  and  trustworthy  contemporary  evi- 
dence, Mr.  DeCosta  comes  forward,  at  this  late  day,  and  says : 
"  It  is  true  that  the  command  of  the  volunteers  raised  was  at  first 
given  to  Allen,  but  when  Benedict  Arnold  arrived  at  Castleton, 
with  authority  from  the  Massachusetts  committee,  the  command 
was  divided,  and  it  was  definitely  arranged  that  Arnold  and  Allen 
should  exercise  an  equal  authority,  which  is  a  'point  that  has  not 
been  generally  understood."  Certainly,  Mr.  DeCosta  is  right  in 
saying  that  "  point  has  not  been  generally  understood,"  and  he 
might  have  said  with  equal  force  that  it  never  would  be.  The 
statement  itself  is  altogether  improbable.     A  divided  command 


23 

would  be  a  novel  experiment  in  military  operations,  quite  too  rash 
and  dangerous,  one  would  think,  to  be  attempted.  Indeed,  the 
idea  that  a  body  of  intelligent  persons  about  to  make  a  perilous 
attack  upon  a  fortified  post,  should  have  deliberately  consented 
and  "  definitely  arranged  "  that  two  men  should  exercise  an  equal 
authority  over  them,  the  one  be  allowed  to  direct  one  thing,  and 
the  other  with  equal  right  to  forbid  it  and  direct  another,  seems 
too  absurd  to  be  credited  of  sane  men.  Certainly,  no  one  can  be 
expected  to  believe  it  but  upon  the  production  of  the  fullest  proof 
from  sources  altogether  beyond  suspicion.     There  is  no  such  proof. 

The  only  authorities  to  sustain  this  story  of  a  divided  command 
are  the  statements  of  Arnold  himself,  and  an  anonymous  and 
suspicious  newspaper  article.  These  statements,  as  we  shall  see, 
are  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and  being  contradicted  by  all 
other  evidence,  are  not  entitled  to  any  credit  whatever. 

Arnold  had  been  ambitious  of  the  honor  of  capturing  the  for- 
tress, and  was  sorely  disappointed  in  finding  that  another  expedi- 
tion was  in  advance  of  him.  Possessed  of  unbounded  assurance, 
he  made  claims  of  authority  under  his  commission,  which  it  in  no 
sense  warranted,  and  to  which  he  could  have  no  equitable  preten- 
sions, in  the  hope  that  his  arrogant  assumptions  would  induce  the 
men  already  embodied  to  accept  him  as  their  commander.  Foiled 
in  this,  the  next  day  after  the  capture  he  wrote  a  long  letter  to 
the  Massachusetts  Committee  of  Safety,  from  whom  he  had  received 
his  commission,  railing  bitterly  against  Allen  and  his  associates 
in  the  expedition,  and  claiming  great  merit  for  himself,  with  the 
hope,  no  doubt,  of  inducing  the  committee  to  favor  his  pretensions, 
and  place  him  in  the  command  of  the  post.  Envious  of  the  honor 
acquired  by  Allen,  and  anxious  to  share  at  least  a  portion  of  it, 
he  falsely  wrote  to  the  committee  that "  on  and  before  taking  pos- 
session "  of  the  fort  he  "  had  agreed  with  Col.  Allen  to  issue 
future  orders  jointly,"  but  that  "  Allen,  finding  he  had  the  ascen- 
dency over  his  people,"  had  violated  the  agreement,  and  refused 


24 


to  allow  him  any  command.  He  claimed  that  he  "  was  the  first 
person  who  entered  and  took  possession  of  the  fort,"  and  says  he 
"  shall  keep  it  at  every  hazard  ;"  and  he  states  that  the  men  at 
the  fort  "  are  in  the  greatest  confusion  and  anarchy,  destroying 
and  plundering  private  property,  and  committing  every  enormity," 
&c,  <fcc.     (Force's  Archives,  Vol.  2,  557.) 

Arnold  also  in  a  letter  to  the  Continental  Congress,  of  the  29th 
of  May,  speaks  of  his  having  had  a  joint  command  in  the  cap- 
ture, not,  as  in  his  above  mentioned  letter,  by  the  agreement  of  Col. 
Allen,  but  by  that  of  the  Connecticut  committee.  After  stating 
his  arrival  in  the  neighborhood  of  Ticonderoga,  with  his  instruc- 
tions from  the  Massachusetts  committee,  he  says,  "  I  met  one  Co- 
lonel Allen,  with  about  one  hundred  men,  raised  at  the  instance  of 
some  gentlemen  from  Connecticut,  who  agreed  we  should  have  a 
joint  command."  {Ibid.  784.)  The  newspaper  article  before 
alluded  to,  is  a  communication  to  HoW  s  New  York  Journal,  signed 
"  Veritas,"  and  dated  at  Ticonderoga,  June  25,  1775.  Its  pro- 
fessed object  was  to  correct  an  erroneous  account  of  the  capture 
of  the  fort,  which  had  been  published  in  the  Oracle  of  Liberty  at 
Worcester,  and  which  ascribed  an  undue  share  of  the  honor  to 
Col.  Easton.  {Ibid.  1085.)  This  gives  still  another  version  of 
the  pretended  agreement  for  a  joint  command.  The  words  of  the 
article  are,  "  When  Col.  Arnold  made  known  his  commission,  etc., 
it  was  voted  by  the  officers  present  that  he  should  take  a  joint  com- 
mand with  Col.  Allen,  (Col.  Easton  not  presuming  to  take  any 
command.)"  We  thus  see  that  the  alleged  agreement  was  at  first 
only  with  Allen,  then,  a  few  weeks  later,  it  was  with  the  gentle- 
men from  Connecticut,  and  that  it  finally  became  amplified  into  a 
formal  vote  of  all  the  officers  who  were  present.  The  glaring 
discrepancy  between  these  several  accounts  would  alone  be  suffi- 
cient to  cast  grave  distrust  on  the  whole  story,  if  not  to  stamp  it 

with  absolute  falsehood.     But  what  credit  can  be  given  to  the 

* 
story  when  it  is  found  to  be  contradicted  by  every  other  known  ac- 


count  of  the  capture,  and  especially,  as  we  have  already  seen,  by 
that  of  the  committee  of  war,  having  the  general  charge  of  the 
expedition,  who,  if  any  such  agreement  had  been  made  with 
any  one,  must  have  known  all  about  it.  This  committee  was 
composed  of  intelligent  and  respectable  men,  whose  veracity  was 
never  questioned  ;  and  their  testimony  is  of  too  high  a  character 
to  be  impeached  or  impaired  by  any  statements  of  the  traitor  Ar- 
nold, or  of  an  anonymous  newspaper  writer. 

The  writer  of  the  "  Veritas  "  article,  in  addition  to  his  state- 
ment about  the  joint  command,  says  Arnold  "  was  the  first  person 
who  entered  the  fort,  and  Allen  about  five  yards  behind  him." 
But  this  statement  is  contradicted  by  Allen  in  his  letter  to  the 
Albany  Committee,  written  the  next  day  after  the  capture,  by 
Gordon  in  his  history,  and  by  other  accounts.  Allen  says,  "  Col. 
Arnold  entered  the  fortress  with  me  side  by  side."  {Ibid.  606.) 
Gordon  says,  "  they  advanced  along-side  of  each  other,  Colonel 
Allen  on  the  right  hand  of  Col.  Arnold,  and  entered  the  port 
leading  to  the  fort  in  the  gray  of  the  morning."  (Yol.  2,  p.  13.) 
"  Yeritas  "  also  claims  that  Arnold  is  entitled  to  special  merit  for 
hurrying  the  men  across  the  lake,  and  hastening  the  attack,  with- 
out waiting  for  the  whole  force  to  be  brought  over ;  which  claim  is 
unsupported  by  any  other  evidence,  and  should  be  taken  to  be  of 
the  same  character  with  the  writer's  other  statements  that  have 
been  above  disproved. 

Treating  this  article  signed  "  Yeritas  "  as  an  additional  author- 
ity to  that  of  Arnold,  it  can  have  but  small  tendency  to  weaken 
the  effect  of  the  evidence  already  adduced  against  it.  But  it  is  not 
entitled  to  the  distinction  of  a  separate  and  independent  account. 
It  is  dated,  as  before  stated,  the  25th  of  June,  1775,  at  Ticonde- 
roga,  where  Arnold  then  was,  and  it  was  undoubtedly  prepared 
under  his  supervision  and  dictation,  if  not  actually  penned  by  him. 
It  purports  to  have  been  written  "  to  do  justice  to  modest  merit  " 
—  the  modest  merit  of  Benedict  Arnold !  —  a  man  whose  arro- 


26 


gance  and  effrontery  were  so  uniformly  offensive  as  to  make  his 
whole  life  a  continued  quarrel  for  power  and  precedence.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  any  one  but  Arnold  himself  could  have 
had  the  shamelessness  to  talk  of  his  modesty,  or  speak  of  his 
"  modest  merit  /"  This  alone  strongly  indicates  that  he  was  its 
author.  And  the  detailed  account  which  the  article  gives  of  the 
numerous  alleged  sayings  and  acts  of  Arnold  at  different  times  and 
places,  could  only  have  come  from  Arnold  himself. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  story  of  Arnold's  joint  command,  of  his 
special  services  in  the  capture  of  the  fortress,  and  of  the  miscon- 
duct of  Allen's  men  after  his  taking  possession,  rest  upon  the 
authority  of  Arnold  alone — the  party  who  claims  the  benefit  of 
his  statements  to  enhance  his  own  merit  and  disparage  that  of 
others.  And  what  is  the  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  of  this 
witness  who  thus  testifies  against  all  others,  and  in  his  own  behalf? 
Bad,  beyond  question.  From  his  youth  up,  though  admitted  to 
be  brave  even  to  rashness,  he  was  always  equally  well  noted  for 
want  of  principle.  Examples  of  his  early  falsehood,  peculation 
and  fraud  might  be  given,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  His  want  of 
integrity  was  known  long  before  his  patriotism  was  called  in 
question.  He  was  always  as  thorough  a  liar,  as  he  was  ever  a 
traitor. 

That  in  his  account  of  the  transactions  at  Ticonderoga,  Arnold 
did  not,  any  more  than  on  other  occasions,  hesitate  at  telling  a 
direct  falsehood  to  enhance  his  own  fame  or  injure  that  of  others, 
is  most  certain.  There  is  one  instance,  at  least,  about  which  there 
can  be  no  controversy.  We  have  already  seen  that  on  the  8th  of 
May,  before  Arnold  arrived  at  Castleton,  the  whole  plan  for  future 
proceedings  had  been  agreed  upon  in  council,  and  the  men  assigned 
their  respective  parts.  A  party  of  thirty  men,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Captain  Herrick,  was  to  go  to  Skenesborough  the  next 
day  in  the  afternoon,  and  take  into  custody  Major  Skene,  and  cap- 


27 

ture    his  boats.     The  party  did  go,  and  was  entirely  successful. 
Major  Skene,  together  with  Captain  Delaplace  and  two  subalterns, 
was  sent  off  to  Hartford  on  the  12th  of  May,  in  charge  of  Messrs. 
Hicock,  Halsey  and  Nichols,  with  a  letter  from  Col.  Allen  to  Gov. 
Trumbull,  of  that  date.     In  his  letter  Col.  Allen  says,  "I  make 
you  a  present  of  a  major,  a  captain  and  two  lieutenants  in  the 
regular  establishment  of  George  the  Third.     *     *     A  party  of 
men,  under  command  of  Captain  Herrick,  has  took  possession  of 
Skenesborough,  imprisoned  Major  Skene,  and  seized  a  schooner 
of  his."     In  Major  Skene's  petition  to  the  Assembly  of  Connecti- 
cut, he  says  he  was  seized  by  persons  claiming  to  act  under  the 
authority  of  that  colony,  and  that  his  seizure  took  place  the  9th 
of  May,  which  was  the  day  before  the  capture  of  the  fortress. 
(Conn.  Rev.  Papers,  Vol.  1,  Doc.  402,  and  Conn.  Hist.  Col.  178 
-180.)     On  the  11th  of  May,  two  days  afterwards,  some  men  who 
had  been  enlisted  in  Western  Massachusetts,  under  Arnold's  or- 
ders, reached  Skenesborough  on  their  way  to  Ticonderoga,  and 
finding  the  already  captured  schooner  there,  took  passage  in  herr 
and  brought  her  to  the  fort,  where  she  arrived  on  the  13th.  (Force's 
Archives,  Yol.  2,  686.)     That  these  were  the  first  of  Arnold's  men 
that  joined  him,  is  shown  by  his  own  letters  of  the  11th  and  19th  of 
May.     (Ibid.  557,  645.)     And  yet,  he  had  the  hardihood  and  the* 
meanness  to  seize  upon  this  incident  of  the  arrival  of  his  men  in 
the  schooner,  to  endeavor  to  exalt  himself  with  his  distant  employ- 
ers, by  falsely  representing  to  them  that  the  original  capture  of 
Skene  and  his  effects,  had  been  made  by  them  in  pursuance  of  his. 
previous  orders.     In  a  letter  to  the  Massachusetts  Committee  of 
Safety,  dated  "  Ticonderoga,  May  14,  1775,"  he  says,  I,  [that  is, 
Benedict  Arnold,]  " 1 ordered  a  party  to  Skenesborough  to  take  Major 
Skene,  who  have  made  him  prisoner,  and  seized  a  small  schooner  r 
which  is  just  arrived  here."    (Ibid.  584.)    It  would  seem  that  this 
example  of  Arnold's  plain,  downright  lying,  in  so  important  a 


28 


matter,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  even  a  disciple  of  "  the 
new  school  of  history,"  that  any  statement  of  his  about  his  part  in 
the  capture  of  Ticonderoga,  or  of  the  misconduct  of  others  there, 
which  is  unsupported  by  other  evidence,  is  not  entitled  to  credit,  or 
even  to  serious  attention. 

Coming  as  Arnold  did,  with  authority  from  the  Massachusetts 
Committee  of  Safety,  to  raise  men  for  the  seizure  of  the  fort,  which 
Allen  and  his  associates  were  about  to  attack,  they  were  disposed, 
though  utterly  denying  his  right  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  their 
proceedings,  to  treat  him  with  courtesy  and  respect.  Hence  he 
was  allowed  to  take  his  place  by  the  side  of  Allen,  and  to  enter 
the  fort  with  him  at  his  left  hand,  but  without  any  command  what- 
ever. 

Arnold's  claim  to  a  joint  command,  and  to  have  captured  the 
fortress,  and  his  threat  "  to  keep  it  at  every  hazard,"  met 
with  no  countenance  from  the  Massachusetts  authorities.  On  the 
contrary,  the  congress  of  that  colony,  on  the  17th  of  May,  by 
resolution,  stated  the  capture  to  have  been  made  u  by  the  intrepid 
valor  of  a  number  of  men  under  the  command  of  Col.  Allen,  Col. 
Easton  and  others,"  and  it  approved  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
committee  of  the  expedition  in  sustaining  Allen  in  the  command  of 
the  post.  On  the  22d  of  May  the  congress  wrote  Arnold,  in  answer 
to  his  before  mentioned  letter  of  the  11th,  that  as  the  expedition 
had  been  begun  in  Connecticut,  they  had  requested  that  colony  to 
take  the  care  and  direction  of  the  whole  matter,  and  they  enclosed 
Arnold  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  request  which  they  had  addressed 
to  the  Connecticut  Assembly.  (Jour,  of  Provincial  Congress, 
235,  250,  and  Force's  Archives,  Yol.  2,  808,  676.) 

Early  in  June,  a  regiment  one  thousand  strong,  from  Connecti- 
cut, under  the  command  of  Col.  Benjamin  Hinman,  arrived  at 
Ticonderoga,  to  whom  Col.  Allen  at  once  gave  up  the  command. 
JBut  Arnold  by  this  time  had  been  joined  by  some  recruits  from 


29 

Western  Massachusetts,  and  had  enlisted  some  of  the  original] 
captors  of  the  posts,  whose  terms  of  service  had  expired, —  to  the 
number  in  the  whole  of  some  one  or  two  hundred.     Notwithstand- 
ing the  foregoing  notice  to  him,  that  the  conquered  posts  were 
to  be  under  the  charge  of  Connecticut,  he  disputed  the  authority 
of  Col.  Hinman,  and  insisted  that  the  command  belonged  to  him. 
On  being  informed  of  this  conduct,  the  Massachusetts  congress 
appointed  a  committee  of  three  of  their  number  to  visit  Ticonde- 
roga  and  Crown  Point,  with  instructions  to  inquire  into  the  con- 
dition of  affairs,  and  to  give  such  orders  to  Arnold  as  they  should 
deem  proper.     The    committee  found  him  claiming,  as  they  say, 
"  all  the  posts  and  fortresses  at  the  south  ends  of  Lake  Champlain 
and  Lake  George,  although  Col.  Hinman  was  at  Ticonderoga,  with 
near  a  thousand  men  at  the  several  posts."     The  committee  gave 
Arnold  a  copy  of  their  instructions,  and  informed  him  it  was  ex- 
pected he  would  give  up  the  command  to  Col.  Hinman,  and  be  un- 
der him  as  an  officer  there,  but  he  declined  it,  and  declared  "  he 
would  not  be  second  to  any  man:'     Upon  this,  the  committee  di- 
rected him  to  turn  over  the  men  he  had  enlisted,  which  "  he  said 
was  between  two  and  three  hundred,"  to  Col.  Hinman  ;  but  instead 
of  complying,  he  disbanded  his  men,  and  resigned  his  commission. 
He  then  vented  his  indignation  against  the  authority  that  had  com- 
missioned him,  by  fomenting  a  dangerous  mutiny  among  his  dis- 
banded men.     His  insubordinate  and  arrogant  conduct  on  this  oc- 
casion is  a  fair  example  of  the  u  modest  merit"  so  conspicuously 
claimed  for  him  in  the  lying  article  signed  "  Veritas,"  before  men- 
tioned ;  which  article  very  appropriately  bears  date  at  Ticonde- 
roga the  day  after  his  resignation  and  mutiny.     (See  the  reports 
of  the  committee  in  the  Journal  of  the  Mass.  Congress,  717-724, 
and  Force's  Archives,  Vol.  2,  1407,  1539-40,  1592,  1596,  1598.) 
No  mention  is  made  of  the  claim  of  Arnold  to  a  joint  command 
in  the  capture  of  Ticonderoga  in  any  contemporaneous  account, 


30 

5 

except  by  Arnold  himself,  as  before  stated;  and  whoever  would 
impugn  the  current  histories  of  the  event,  must  rely  upon  his  state- 
ments alone,  and  discard  the  testimony  of  all  others.  All  other 
such  accounts  concur  in  treating  Col.  Allen  as  the  sole  commander 
of  the  expedition,  and  of  the  assaulting  party.  Allen  made  such 
claim  himself,  in  letters  written  the  next  day  to  the  Albany  com- 
mittee and  to  the  Massachusetts  Congress,  and  in  all  his  corres- 
pondence, as  well  as  in  his  narrative  of  his  captivity  before  cited, 
and  his  claim  was  uniformly  admitted.  (Force's  Archives,  Vol.  2, 
606  and  556.) 

The  sending  of  the  officers  captured  at  Ticonderoga  and 
Skenesborough  to  Hartford,  with  a  letter  from  Col.  Allen,  has 
already  been  mentioned.  The  residue  of  the  prisoners  were 
sent  under  the  escort  of  Epaphras  Bull,  one  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  War  before  mentioned.  The  former  party  arrived  at 
Hartford  on  the  18th  of  May,  and  the  latter  on  the  20th.  (Conn. 
Coll.,  178,  179.)  The  next  issue  of  the  Hartford  Courant, 
of  the  22d  of  May,  contains  what  purports  to  be  an  "  authentic 
account  of  the  fortresses  of  Ticonderoga  and  Crown  Point," 
which  states  explicity  that,  "  Col.  Allen  commanding  the  soldiery, 
on  Wednesday  morning  they  surprised  and  took  possession  of  the 
fortress."  This  account,  brought  direct  from  Ticonderoga  by  the 
persons  having  charge  of  the  prisoners,  and  who  belonged  to  the 
original  party  sent  from  Hartford  with  the  expedition,  is  entitled 
to  the  character  and  credit  of  an  official  account. 

But  there  was  another  witness  of  the  capture,  who  certainly 
ought  to  have  known  who  took  Ticonderoga,  and  that  is  Capt. 
Delaplace,  its  British  Commander,  who  surrendered  it  to  the 
assaulting  force  ;  and  it  seems'proper  to  call  him  to  the  stand.  On 
the  24th  of  May,  the  week  after  he  was  brought  to  Hartford,  he 
addressed  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Connecticut  a  memorial, 
"  in  behalf  of  himself  and  the  officers  and  soldiers  under  his  com- 


31 

mand,"  asking  to  be  released  from  their  imprisonment.  This 
memorial  is  printed  in  full  in  "  Hinman's  Historical  Collections  of 
the  part  sustained  by  Connecticut  in  the  revolution,"  published  in 
1842,  page  541.     It  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Your  memorialists  would  represent  that  on  the  morning  of  the 
tenth  of  May,  the  garrison  of  the  fortress  of  Ticonderoga,  in  the 
Province  of  New  York,  was  surprised  by  a  party  of  armed  men, 
under  the  command  of  one  Ethan  Allen,  consisting  of  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty,  who  had  taken  such  measures  as  effectually  to 
surprise  the  same,  that  very  little  resistance  could  be  made,  and 
to  whom  your  memorialists  were  obliged  to  surrender  as  prisoners ; 
and  overpowered  by  a  superior  force  were  disarmed,  and  by  said 
Allen  ordered  immediately  to  be  sent  to  Hartford." 

It  would  seem  that  this  solemn  asseveration  of  the  British  com- 
mander, in  confirmation  of  the  mass  of  other  evidence  already 
produced,  ought  to  be  accepted  by  Mr.  DeCosta  as  a  sufficient 
•answer  to  the  question  with  which  he  commences  his  article  of 
"  Who  took  Ticonderoga?"  and  that  even  he  should  now  be  satis- 
fied that  it  was  taken  uby  one  .Ethan  Allen"  and  that  the  preten- 
sions of  the  traitor  Arnold  to  a  share  in  the  command  were 
altogether  unfounded. 

Mr.  DeCosta  has  one  remaining  difficulty  about  the  taking  of 
Ticonderoga,  which  it  is  perhaps  worth  while  to  notice.  He  has 
great  doubts  whether  Allen  did  really  demand  the  surrender  of  the 
fortress  "  in  the  name  of  the  Great  Jehovah  and  the  Continental 
Congress,"  as  all  history  and  tradition  have  hitherto  declared. 
The  language  of  the  demand  is  so  perfectly  characteristic  of  Allen 
.as  scarcely  to  need  proof,  of  which  however  there  is  no  lack.  The 
principal  trouble  with  Mr.  DeCosta  on  this  point  is,  that  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  did  not  assemble  until  the  very  morning  of  the 
capture,  and  in  fact,  not  until  some  hours  after  the  surrender.  If 
Mr.  DeCosta  had  paid  some  slight  attention  to  the  history  of  the 
•period,  about  which  he  was  seeking  to  enlighten  the  public,  he 


32 

might  have  ascertained  that  a  general  congress  of  the  several 
colonies  had  assembled  the  previous  Autumn,  and  had  recommended 
the  meeting  of  another  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  10th  of  the  then 
following  May  ;  that  delegates  had  been  appointed  to  it  in  all  the 
colonies — in  New  York  after  great  agitation  and  discussion  ;  that 
it  was  familiarly  spoken  of  as  the  Continental  Congress  ;  that  its 
authority  was  everywhere  acknowledged  by  the  Whigs,  and  that 
the  day  of  its  assembling  was  well  known  in  every  household  in 
the  country.  With  the  fact  in  Allen's  mind  that  it  was  the  day  of 
the  gathering  of  the  Congress,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
that  he  should  proclaim  its  authority  to  the  astonished  officer  of 
the  King,  whose  tyranical  measures  it  was  the  design  of  the  Con- 
gress to  resist.  The  committee  of  war,  who  were  in  charge  of  the 
expedition  against  the  fortress,  as  well  as  Allen,  bore  in  remem- 
brance the  name  and  authority  of  that  Congress.  In  the  commis- 
sion of  Mott,  as  chairman  of  the  committee,  to  Allen,  to  keep  the 
command  of  the  fort,  which  has  been  before  recited,  and  bears  date 
the  10th  day  of  May,  (the  very  day  of  its  surrender,)  Allen  is 
directed  to  hold  the  same  until  he  "  has  further  orders  from  the 
Colony  of  Connecticut  or  the  Continental  Congress."  There  is, 
therefore,  no  occasion  for  Mr.  DeCosta's  having  any  further  trouble 
on  that  point. 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  an  examination  of  all  the  argu- 
ments and  authorities  brought  forward  by  the  writer  of  the  Galaxy 
article,  and  find  that  this  apostle  of  "  the  new  school  of  history  " 
has  utterly  failed  to  weaken  or  impair  the  long  established  histor- 
ical account,  which  with  high  pretensions  and  parade,  he  promised 
to  overthrow  and  annihilate.  Notwithstanding  his  extraordinary 
efforts,  things  continue  as  they  were.  Ethan  Allen  remains  the 
undisturbed  and  undoubted  hero  of  Ticonderoga.  To  him,  and 
the  fearless  band  of  patriots  under  his  command,  belongs  the  honor 
of  the  capture,  and  of  thus  compelling  the  first  surrender  of  the 
British  flag  to  the  coming  American  Republic. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or      , 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


7Nov'62Jf 


Ktu  ^ 


Nov— r« 


r  "HUa 


UUTT5  iom 


UNIV.  OF  CALIF.,  I 


*ALHfc_ 


LD  2lA-50m-3,'62 
(C7097slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


T.M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


^,,™iWiiijleyubrariej 


M14478 


o 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


